HR Forces Financial Times Hamas Clarification
March 1, 2012 15:34 by Simon Plosker
Back in December 2011, the Financial Times refused to correct an error during an email exchange with HonestReporting. Covering the 24th anniversary “celebrations” of Hamas, the paper reported Hamas boasts of killing 1365 “Zionist soldiers” taking the statement to mean “Israeli soldiers”.
Despite the fact that other media and Hamas itself understood the figure to include Israeli civilians and military personnel alike, the FT simply refused to acknowledge this despite HR providing the FT with crystal-clear statistical evidence to back this up.
The FT told us that “we don’t feel a correction is warranted” and “Hamas was clearly not talking about civilians.”
Related content: FT Hamas Shocker: “We Don’t Feel a Correction Was Warranted”
While we usually encourage our subscribers to take action, in this case, as the issue had arisen as a result of a direct exchange between HR and the FT, we decided, on a matter of principle, to take matters further. Both on behalf of the victims of Hamas terror and to see for ourselves whether the official channels of complaint would actually work against a UK media outlet, we submitted a formal complaint to the UK’s Press Complaints Commission (PCC) made in the name of an individual (HR Managing Editor Simon Plosker) rather than an organization.
Some two months later, here is the result (registration required) (also on Page 12 of the FT’s Mideast print edition of February 29):
But what did it take just to get this simple correction?
Tuvia Fogel
5:03 pm
Mar 01, 2012
Good work! A perfect example of why I contribute what little I can to Honest Reporting.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
44 
0
Morton Isaacs
5:05 pm
Mar 01, 2012
How long before the English media prides itself on accuracy rather than on numbers of readers? Another instance of antisemitism masquerading as objective news coverage.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
56 
0
Tony
5:20 pm
Mar 01, 2012
How Long will it take for the FT to acknowledge that they are and also employ ANTISEMITIC and RACIST Journalists. BRAVO HR for your persevearance in obtaining this Rectification. It may have taken time,,But If the FT had Principals,, like You Have,,,They would not have had to go thru with this ,,, “Painfull ordeal:))) All they had to do Was a bit of HONEST.REPORTING
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
48 
0
Jaume Folch
5:26 pm
Mar 01, 2012
Bravo HR! This outcome demonstrates the efficacy of your work.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
40 
0
Avvie Druker
5:46 pm
Mar 01, 2012
When I try to read page 2, the page darkens over and you have a colored advert blocking half the page. This has happened repeatedly and is very frustrating. Although i enjoy reading your emails, I’m tempted to cancel, so I won’t be wasting my time. Can you do something to overcome this?
Hot debate. What do you think?
2 
6
stantheman
6:05 pm
Mar 01, 2012
just hit the x on the top right of the advert and it disappears.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
17 
0
judith roth
5:58 pm
Mar 01, 2012
I applaud you for your perseverance in getting a retraction. I sometimes feel I am a voice in the wilderness when I complain to MP’s and newspapers regarding unfair bias towards Israel.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
28 
0
steve mann
7:11 pm
Mar 01, 2012
Judith you are not alone in the wilderness- HR is an excellent carrier of the news that affects Israel and I for one do as you do- Being retired I have the time energy and maddening anger to follow stories and contact politicians not just in the UK but around the world.
My pet subject at this time is the BBC and the Malcom Balen report- Which yet again the UK judiciary have supported the BBC in NOT disclosing its findings-
Any one writing to the BBC regarding any topic- please insert a caveat and mention- “Publish the Malcom Balen Report”
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
19 
0
david
6:07 pm
Mar 01, 2012
well done
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
13 
0
phili
7:25 pm
Mar 01, 2012
While we must continue to do what we can (write to the FT and the like and keep at it until a reply comes – and inform our MP and ask for a response, and get one) let us remember also what God has said in Genesis 12:3. It encourages us!
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
8 
0
Jack
7:35 pm
Mar 01, 2012
I’d like to see the statistics broken down–at least on this site: how many soldiers and how many civilians?
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
9 
0
Arthur Brociner
8:11 pm
Mar 01, 2012
Jack,
The statistics broken down – Israeli soldiers and Israeli civilians civilians murdered by “Palestinians” – can be found here:
http://honestreporting.com/ft-hamas-shocker-we-dont-feel-a-correction-was-warranted/
and they are as follows:
492 members of the Israeli security forces killed by Palestinians
1025 Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians
Total number of Israelis killed by Palestinians, Dec. 1987 – present: 1517
Agree or Disagree:
2 
0
Elle
8:23 pm
Mar 01, 2012
Thanks for your tireless work. I too would like to see the breakdown of ciilians vs soldiers.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
7 
0
B.L.
10:43 pm
Mar 01, 2012
In my opinion, you should not have accepted the wording of this retraction. It is still very misleading; to a person who doesn’t pay close attention, it’s just replacing the word “Zionist,”with the word “Israeli.” The way the last sentence is worded is a bit vague, AND by saying “appears to have referred,” they are pretty much negating the correction. Sort of like “We don’t believe this ourselves, but they’re making us do it.”
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
5 
1
Nigel Blumenthal
5:03 am
Mar 04, 2012
I agree. So much so that I left this comment on the FT “corrections” page:
”
Pretty poor correction: I would re-word it thus
“We reported Hamas’ claims about the number of Israelis killed by them since 1987 as if they referred to soldiers only. We did not bother to investigate behind the inaccurate translation, and find out that in fact they were referring not just to soldiers, but to soldiers and Israeli civilians.”
“
Agree or Disagree:
3 
0
Mark
11:34 pm
Mar 01, 2012
That it should take so much time and effort to get a “news” organisation to print the simple and indisputable truth, rather than smarmy lies, is appalling. Bravo to HR and Simon Plosker – shame on the FT. The so-called correction is woefully inadequate, still misleading, and shows utter disrespect to the concept of printing nothing but the truth. The PCC should have also fined the FT for the costs and expenses of having to wage a protracted battle in an open-and-shut case like this, as the FT was clearly and wilfully struggling to avoid doing the right thing.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
11 
0
David Kravitz
2:06 pm
Mar 02, 2012
Well done Simon. I have been trying, for years, with complaints to the PCC but a total lack of success.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
5 
0
Brent Pudsey
2:21 pm
Mar 02, 2012
Honesty Reporting is to be comended for its sucess. It is wonderful that the media realized that they were in error and offered a retraction to the reading public.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
5 
0
chris.dekker
7:05 pm
Mar 02, 2012
I think that ft should print a retraction on page one
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
6 
0
michael redhill
4:44 am
Mar 04, 2012
I have been an admirer of the British media for may yearsbut have for quite some time been disillusioned by their bias and often poorly hidden hate of Israel. It used to be said “It must be true, I heard it on the BBC” but now ……………………………..
Agree or Disagree:
2 
0
Ariel
2:27 am
Mar 07, 2012
It is a ridiculous complaint, despite there is a difference those defending Israel are Zionists. I think we should change the bad impresion it gives that word to something positive.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
2
Ariel
2:43 am
Mar 07, 2012
We waste a lot of energy fighting against things that can be transformed into good advertisement. Hasbara activists need to stop the childish fights and use their mind for strategic thinking. Please…
Agree or Disagree:
0 
1
Gábor Fränkl
6:51 pm
Mar 07, 2012
Bravo, HR!!! For these moments it’s worth living. The wretched, miserable, reliably and blatantly anti-Israel animus of FT is rvealed for all without the slightest doubt! Well done!
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0